Atlanta Shootings: Hate or Sex

[Terrapin Station]

I haven't studied it, but from what I've heard, it seems to have been motivated by his sexual issues.

[Walker]

I haven't studied it, but from what I've heard, it seems to have been motivated by his sexual issues.

They say that’s what he said. Did you see his picture? Someone who tries to look that ugly has some self-loathing issues. How about drugs laying waste to impulse control and overall rationality.

What he said indicates he knew what he was doing, so he can't be trusted around human beings again.

In one of the 911 calls the dispatcher spoke with a woman who was in the building with the shooter. The woman was hiding and whispering. The dispatcher wanted to have a long conversation, which would mean lots more whispering that could alert the shooter.

Stupid mistake by the dispatcher.

[commonsense]

Is it wrong for a government to legislate pronoun usage?

I think you need to make some basic distinctions.

Have the government legislated on pronoun usage?

And have they made an infraction of pronoun usage a "hate crime".

Stop being a rightard twat!

It's a simple yes or no question.

This is a philosophy forum. Stop being an idiot.

It's about principles.

Is it wrong for a government to legislate pronoun usage?

Yes, it is wrong for a government to legislate pronoun usage if that government supports free speech.

Do you have knowledge of any such government?

[Terrapin Station]

In one of the 911 calls the dispatcher spoke with a woman who was in the building with the shooter. The woman was hiding and whispering. The dispatcher wanted to have a long conversation, which would mean lots more whispering that could alert the shooter.

Stupid mistake by the dispatcher.

Yeah, I've seen that before with 911 calls, where the dispatcher wants the caller to keep talking where it wouldn't be prudent to do so. I understand they want to get as much info as possible, and the idea is also that it might help calm the caller, but it's sometimes not a good idea to encourage them to make noise.

[Walker]

It's a simple yes or no question.

This is a philosophy forum. Stop being an idiot.

It's about principles.

Is it wrong for a government to legislate pronoun usage?

Yes, it is wrong for a government to legislate pronoun usage if that government supports free speech.

Do you have knowledge of any such government?

Let's isolate the principle without qualifiers.

Is it wrong for a government to legislate pronoun usage, whether or not that government supports free speech?

Yes or no. Take a chance, then start philosophizing.

[Sculptor]

Hmm. Well, you have another good point. I do think there can be a difference between dehumanization and hate. Though, I think the two are probably connected. For example, if you hate someone, then, yes, you will likely dehumanize them. However, you can dehumanize people without necessarily hating them. I suppose you might even hate someone without dehumanizing them. I don't know.

I don't know enough about the shooting to really say (I haven't been watching much about it), but from what little I have seen, it sounds like it could qualify as a hate crime, maybe.

Killing several of the same type of human would involve hating and dehumanising I think.

But what happens if one just hates 'humans', and started killing "them", that one would not have to dehumanize anyone, correct?

Dehumanizing could actual produce the opposite outcome in that scenario correct?

Eh?
What do you think, exactly, is the "opposite outcome" ???

[commonsense]

It's a simple yes or no question.

This is a philosophy forum. Stop being an idiot.

It's about principles.

Is it wrong for a government to legislate pronoun usage?

Yes, it is wrong for a government to legislate pronoun usage if that government supports free speech.

Do you have knowledge of any such government?

Let's isolate the principle without qualifiers.

Is it wrong for a government to legislate pronoun usage, whether or not that government supports free speech?

No.

Do you know of any government that legislates pronoun usage or is your whole line of thought just bullshit?

Edited: replaced “dictates” with “legislates”.

[Sculptor]

Is it wrong for a government to legislate pronoun usage?

I think you need to make some basic distinctions.

Have the government legislated on pronoun usage?

And have they made an infraction of pronoun usage a "hate crime".

Stop being a rightard twat!

It's a simple yes or no question.

This is a philosophy forum. Stop being an idiot.

It's about principles.

Is it wrong for a government to legislate pronoun usage?

Yes, this is a philosphy Forum so stop being an idiot.

As far as I know that is no move to legislate pronoun usage.
Please cite!

[Sculptor]

So, in your view, 'murder' is ALWAYS as unjust, correct?

If killing is just then it is not murder. Murder is illegal killing. By definition "ujust".

But what is 'legal' or 'illegal' does not necessarily have any bearing on what is actually 'just' or 'unjust'.

Even if that were true, it would not matter.
Murder is definitively unjust killing. There is no getting over that.
We have other words for killing that is justifyable: homicide, manslaughter ..

Also, WHERE is the word 'murder' defined literally as unjust killing? And, is this a "universally" accepted definition?

Yes.

So, are you now suggesting that the laws in EVERY country are the same?

If no, then how the word 'murder' is defined, in 'legal' terms, in one country is not necessarily how that word is defined, legally or not, in another country, thus that word is NOT "universally" accepted.

In every country that uses the word murder, murder is unjust killing.

Murder is a legal term.

So, are you now saying that the word 'murder' is only defined as "unjust killing" in 'legal' terms only?.

By the way, I have seen the word 'murder' defined, literally, as an unlawful killing, but not as as unjust killing.

Same thing. Justice is a legal system.

LOL If you think or believe that what is JUST, or JUSTICE, itself, is a 'legal' thing/system, then no wonder some of 'you', human beings, are so confused, and thus so deceived, in regards to what is ACTUALLY Right and Wrong in Life.

I do not care what you think.

[Age]

Killing several of the same type of human would involve hating and dehumanising I think.

But what happens if one just hates 'humans', and started killing "them", that one would not have to dehumanize anyone, correct?

Dehumanizing could actual produce the opposite outcome in that scenario correct?

Eh?
What do you think, exactly, is the "opposite outcome" ???

Firstly, I NEVER said 'is' the opposite outcome. I, instead, said 'could' produce the opposite outcome.

Now I suggest thinking about what the word 'dehumanizing' refers to, and how if someone who hates 'humans' and wants to kill 'humans', and then what 'could' happen if that one started 'dehumanizing' human beings. Obviously, the opposite could happen, that is; they could start liking those human beings who are being dehumanized.

Does this make sense now? Or, can you still not comprehend and understand this?

[Age]

If killing is just then it is not murder. Murder is illegal killing. By definition "ujust".

But what is 'legal' or 'illegal' does not necessarily have any bearing on what is actually 'just' or 'unjust'.

Even if that were true, it would not matter.

But it is only "not true", according to you.

Also, if 'you', human beings, want to have a Truly OPEN discussion about what is actually 'just' and 'unjust', then it matters a great deal.

Murder is definitively unjust killing. There is no getting over that.

LOL You have NOT even provided just one place where it is written that "murder is 'unjust' killing".

We have other words for killing that is justifyable: homicide, manslaughter ..

If someone was 'murdered' because they were about to kill a thousand other human beings, for example, then some would say that that is actually a 'justifiable killing'. Although it may still be an 'unlawful killing'.

Yes.

So, are you now suggesting that the laws in EVERY country are the same?

If no, then how the word 'murder' is defined, in 'legal' terms, in one country is not necessarily how that word is defined, legally or not, in another country, thus that word is NOT "universally" accepted.

In every country that uses the word murder, murder is unjust killing.

You just saying this is one thing. But are you able to provide prove that this is the case?

If yes, then will you?

Murder is a legal term.

So, are you now saying that the word 'murder' is only defined as "unjust killing" in 'legal' terms only?.

Same thing. Justice is a legal system.

LOL If you think or believe that what is JUST, or JUSTICE, itself, is a 'legal' thing/system, then no wonder some of 'you', human beings, are so confused, and thus so deceived, in regards to what is ACTUALLY Right and Wrong in Life.

I do not care what you think.

Well prove this by NOT replying to what I think.

Also, what you care or not care about here has NO actual relationship to what I wrote. That is; If you really think or believe that 'justice' is a legal issue only, then you have been more deceived, and are thus more confused, than I first realized.

[Sculptor]

But what happens if one just hates 'humans', and started killing "them", that one would not have to dehumanize anyone, correct?

Dehumanizing could actual produce the opposite outcome in that scenario correct?

Eh?
What do you think, exactly, is the "opposite outcome" ???

Firstly, I NEVER said 'is' the opposite outcome. I, instead, said 'could' produce the opposite outcome.
[/quote}
YEAH what is that?

Now I suggest thinking about what the word 'dehumanizing' refers to, and how if someone who hates 'humans' and wants to kill 'humans', and then what 'could' happen if that one started 'dehumanizing' human beings. Obviously, the opposite could happen, that is; they could start liking those human beings who are being dehumanized.

You area talking nonsense.

Does this make sense now? Or, can you still not comprehend and understand this?

I think you are confused.

[Sculptor]

But what is 'legal' or 'illegal' does not necessarily have any bearing on what is actually 'just' or 'unjust'.

Even if that were true, it would not matter.

But it is only "not true", according to you.

Also, if 'you', human beings, want to have a Truly OPEN discussion about what is actually 'just' and 'unjust', then it matters a great deal.

Murder is definitively unjust killing. There is no getting over that.

LOL You have NOT even provided just one place where it is written that "murder is 'unjust' killing".

We have other words for killing that is justifyable: homicide, manslaughter ..

If someone was 'murdered' because they were about to kill a thousand other human beings, for example, then some would say that that is actually a 'justifiable killing'. Although it may still be an 'unlawful killing'.

So, are you now suggesting that the laws in EVERY country are the same?

If no, then how the word 'murder' is defined, in 'legal' terms, in one country is not necessarily how that word is defined, legally or not, in another country, thus that word is NOT "universally" accepted.

In every country that uses the word murder, murder is unjust killing.

You just saying this is one thing. But are you able to provide prove that this is the case?

If yes, then will you?

So, are you now saying that the word 'murder' is only defined as "unjust killing" in 'legal' terms only?.



LOL If you think or believe that what is JUST, or JUSTICE, itself, is a 'legal' thing/system, then no wonder some of 'you', human beings, are so confused, and thus so deceived, in regards to what is ACTUALLY Right and Wrong in Life.

I do not care what you think.

Well prove this by NOT replying to what I think.

Also, what you care or not care about here has NO actual relationship to what I wrote. That is; If you really think or believe that 'justice' is a legal issue only, then you have been more deceived, and are thus more confused, than I first realized.

I really, really do not care to continue with you.
Please reference Dunning Kruger effect.
You think you know what you are talking about; you do not.

[Age]

Eh?
What do you think, exactly, is the "opposite outcome" ???

Firstly, I NEVER said 'is' the opposite outcome. I, instead, said 'could' produce the opposite outcome.

YEAH what is that?

You really cannot work it out by "yourself", correct?

If in order to murder another human being one has to or does dehumanize that human being, then, if one just hates human beings and is killing "them", then dehumanizing human beings might have the opposite effect on that 'one'.

Now does this make sense, to you?

Now I suggest thinking about what the word 'dehumanizing' refers to, and how if someone who hates 'humans' and wants to kill 'humans', and then what 'could' happen if that one started 'dehumanizing' human beings. Obviously, the opposite could happen, that is; they could start liking those human beings who are being dehumanized.

You area talking nonsense.

Okay. If this is what you BELIEVE is true and you have absolutely NO further curiosity, then let us just leave this with 'you' BELIEVING that 'I' am talking nonsense, okay?

quote]

Does this make sense now? Or, can you still not comprehend and understand this?

I think you are confused.
[/quote]

Okay. But 'what' do you think I am 'confused' about EXACTLY?

[Age]

Even if that were true, it would not matter.

But it is only "not true", according to you.

Also, if 'you', human beings, want to have a Truly OPEN discussion about what is actually 'just' and 'unjust', then it matters a great deal.

Murder is definitively unjust killing. There is no getting over that.

LOL You have NOT even provided just one place where it is written that "murder is 'unjust' killing".

We have other words for killing that is justifyable: homicide, manslaughter ..

If someone was 'murdered' because they were about to kill a thousand other human beings, for example, then some would say that that is actually a 'justifiable killing'. Although it may still be an 'unlawful killing'.

In every country that uses the word murder, murder is unjust killing.

You just saying this is one thing. But are you able to provide prove that this is the case?

If yes, then will you?

I do not care what you think.

Well prove this by NOT replying to what I think.

Also, what you care or not care about here has NO actual relationship to what I wrote. That is; If you really think or believe that 'justice' is a legal issue only, then you have been more deceived, and are thus more confused, than I first realized.

I really, really do not care to continue with you.

Again, we will have to wait and see.

Please reference Dunning Kruger effect.

Already referenced.

You think you know what you are talking about; you do not.

Wait till you learn about how the Mind and the brain actually work, and then you might learn how 'you' are looking at this from the brain, and the BELIEF system, ONLY, which is leading 'you' to conclude things as being true, right, and correct here, without any actual supporting evidence nor proof for 'you' "conclusion".

You have just made Assumptions, based on your own Previous Experiences ONLY, and then have JUMPED to a CONCLUSION, which you BELIEVE is absolutely true, right, and correct. And, as such, you are completely and utterly CLOSED.

This behavior, which you are showing a PRIME EXAMPLE of, will become known as APE behavior.